Good grief, Tibbs. This is my point, and let me know if you really disagree:
It isn’t true that all secular governments are always better than all religious governments.
Did you happen to notice that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a secular country, and that it is only now, after we introduced the current chaos, that the Islamic extremists are running rampant in Iraq?<<
I’m not sure I understand the point. Iraq had a secular government under Saddam so therefore his country posed no threat, or that the threat is not one based on religion? Either way it doesn’t matter.
Iraq was a secular dictatorship. So what? Benito Mussolini was a fascist not a Nazi. The point is that Iraq was providing safe harbor to Islamic terrorists. Allowing them to train, brokering weapons, and providing component parts for WMD.
You may feel the terrorists in Iraq pose/posed no threat to the US. That’s fine. The Bush & Clinton administrations and the US Congress would disagree with you.
If you were denying that there is a religious element to this form of fascism, then I would say read their communications. The religious ties are hard not to see.
History has shown that it is a very dangerous situation when religions start killing innocents in the name of their God, and they tend not to care if you are a Republican or Democrat.
(from the NYTimes)
That’s part of your problem Ken you depend on the Old York Times for your info. You need to get out more often…
But you don’t agree with me on getting relegion out of politics right?
Well, now, that all depends.
Are we talking about America?
What do you mean by getting religion out of politics? If you mean that the American government should stay out of religion, yes. It is the law, right? That’s why think that “under God” doesn’t really belong in the Constitution. It’s against the rules, and I want the rules- all of em- followed. Changed, if necessary, but not broken. If you mean you don’t want people in government, or citizens, acting consistently with their religious beliefs, then we disagree.
What exactly do you mean?
I mean under god in the pledge, in god we trust on the bills, oraganized prayer in public schools, no gays getting married under the law stuff like that.
I’m with you up to the gay marriage thing. Society has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage in the traditional sense, and that isn’t lessened by the fact that said interest coincides with the religious beliefs of many citizens.
War doesn’t determine who’s right, simply who’s LEFT.
Ah, yet another content-free post.
With all do respect, what the hell are you talking about? I don’t know how you can come up with that comment but I would love to know how you conclude that. Sounds like Spain may be your place? Maybe you are happier in Spain? If happiness is the most important factor then maybe you should consider Nigeria, http://www.msnbc.com/news/974827.asp?0si=-&cp1=1
I would also point you to:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=468
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=624 "Americans are generally happier with their lives and more optimistic about their future than are Europeans, "
I wouldn’t make a claim one way or the other but I just found your statement a little over the top
I’m with you up to the gay marriage thing. Society has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage in the traditional sense, and that isn’t lessened by the fact that said interest coincides with the religious beliefs of many citizens. Do I understand you to say that marrying whomever you want is not an inalienable right? What’s next? I can’t live where I want or work where I want?
Sorry. I couldn’t resist.
Tibbs…
Are you describing the Clinton Impeachment Hearings or 9/11 Hearings? Sounds like the same tune… different verse.
I think I shall become a political hack… they seem to have consistent employment, determine their own pay and have reasonably good benefits… not to mention… I like grand standing, catching people with half questions, and prefer double-speak.
But, the real question is… can I give someone a noogie? Now, that would be waaay cool…
Joe Moya
No one in the administration or anywhere else ever claimed a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
From the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on,” Bush said. He then highlighted successes in Afghanistan, citing the construction of roads, hospitals and schools.
But the focus of the speech returned sharply to the connection between Iraq and terrorism.
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror,” he said. “We have removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”
You say above, “No one ever said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq”.
Last month you started a thread where you posted an editorial making this claim.
"You say above, ‘No one ever said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq’.
“Last month you started a thread where you posted an editorial making this claim.”
I guess I should have specified that no one **in the administration **made that claim.
Personally I think it’s just common sense. There are thousands of Islamists in Iraq and elsewhere that want us all dead. I’m not sure why we need to prove which ones were actually involved…
“No one in the administration or anywhere else ever claimed a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq.”
-
- I believe that’s a true statement
“From the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on,” Bush said. He then highlighted successes in Afghanistan, citing the construction of roads, hospitals and schools.”
-
- No statement of a connection between Iraq and 9/11
“But the focus of the speech returned sharply to the connection between Iraq and terrorism.”
-
- No statement of a connection between Iraq and 9/11
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror,” he said. “We have removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”
-
- No statement of a connection between Iraq and 9/11
So are you arguing that the Islamists in Iraq that want us dead are not connected with the Islamists in Afghanistan that want us dead? Does it matter?
steve:
Yup. And, who is killing traditional marriage? Since gays haven’t been able to engage in traditional marriage, I’d say they can’t be blamed for the demise of marriage. The high divorce rate, affairs, children going unsupported, children and spouses abused, etc. are all traditional marriage vices.
If traditional marriage dies, hets will kill it.
Finally, why is it so bad for two people to love each other? It’s not exactly like sending young men to die in a trumped up war.
-Robert, married for 25 years 
CousinElwood:
Why do you think the administration is over-invested in this little commodity?
It isn’t the administration’s exact wording of the connection that is the problem. The problem is the administration’s effort to conflate 9-11 and Iraq in the mind of the public. That’s why Cheney keeps on harping on this old saw, so people will be led down the primrose path of speculation and draw conclusions where non should be reasonably drawn.
If you believe SH had anything to do with 9-11 then YOU’VE been smoking some serious ganja.
-Robert
The Harris survey and euro survey are interesting. Danes are more satisfied with their lives than Americans, so I guess we should all move to Denmark?
Anyway, he was responding to a flippant comment I made about retiring to Spain. Actually, South America might be even better. The solution for the baby boomers may well be to retire to a country like Spain or Ecuador or Mexico where their 401Ks and social security checks will actually purchase something.
It sounds like a romantic idea but I have a feeling the experience might get stale after about 6 months. “Home Boy” has an entirely different meaning to me, and where would I buy my Clif Bars in Ecuador?
-Robert
Robert:
I’m with you. I have no problem with gay marriage (although I must admit, I’m still a little puzzled by the whole controversy).
I was alluding to a spirited debate that Vitus and I had in another thread regarding inalienable rights. IMHO I find his statement inconsistent with his assertions in the other threads, so I was baiting him a little.
Flip-flopper!
Here is an interesting article from the most recent Rand Review regarding Islamic reform.
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/spring2004/pillars.html